https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700093
Bug ID: 1700093 Summary: Review Request: corsix-th - Open source clone of Theme Hospital Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.cordatus@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/corsix-th.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/corsix-th-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc30.src.r...
Description:
CorsixTH aims to reimplement the game engine of Theme Hospital, and be able to load the original game data files. This means that you will need a purchased copy of Theme Hospital, or a copy of the demo, in order to use CorsixTH. After most of the original engine has been reimplemented in open source code, the project will serve as a base from which extensions and improvements to the original game can be made.
Fedora Account System Username: atim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700093
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Not sure this is allowed en Fedora:
We use graphics, sound and other data from the original game so one of the following is required:
Original game CD from eBay etc. or your dusty bookshelfsmile A download from GOG.com or Origin
Needs legal opinion on this.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700093
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- The strict letter of the guidelines say that software which has external non-free/non-freely distributable _code_ dependencies is not acceptable in Fedora. This would be an external non-free/non-freely distributable _content_ dependency.
I think, as long as we do not distribute any of the "Theme Hospital" content in Fedora, this application is fine to be included. I would hope that the application, if installed without the "Theme Hospital" content, does something sensible, and doesn't just crash.
Lifting FE-Legal.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700093
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}-beta1.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}-beta1.tar.gz
→
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}-beta1/%{name}-%{version}-beta1.tar.gz
Please document the license breakdown in the SPEC.
Package otherwise approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in corsix- th-data [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: corsix-th-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.x86_64.rpm corsix-th-data-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.noarch.rpm corsix-th-debuginfo-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.x86_64.rpm corsix-th-debugsource-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.x86_64.rpm corsix-th-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.src.rpm corsix-th.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplement -> re implement, re-implement, implement corsix-th.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplemented -> re implemented, re-implemented, implemented corsix-th-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplement -> re implement, re-implement, implement corsix-th-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplemented -> re implemented, re-implemented, implemented corsix-th-data.noarch: W: no-documentation corsix-th.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplement -> re implement, re-implement, implement corsix-th.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplemented -> re implemented, re-implemented, implemented 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700093
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/corsix-th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700093
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- corsix-th-0.63-0.4.beta1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-22a8be6b1f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700093
--- Comment #6 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #2)
I would hope that the application, if installed without the "Theme Hospital" content, does something sensible, and doesn't just crash.
Good news: it doesn't crash without original "Theme Hospital" content. The first time you start the game it may ask for the location of Theme Hospital data files.
Pushed to testing. Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700093
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- corsix-th-0.63-0.4.beta1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-22a8be6b1f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700093
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-05-01 00:40:40
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- corsix-th-0.63-0.4.beta1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com